Why there were no wing marks on the Pentagon

[Rocknrule]

Isn't it true that the wing of Flight 77 caught an edge on the ground and cartwheeled into the building instead of flying straight into it? If so, that would explain the relatively narrow entry hole and lack of wing damage.

[hack89]

1. Here is a good place to start ..

there was actually damage on the facade consistent with the impact of wings.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[salvorhardin]

4. This is an interesting diagram

Sometimes I wonder if people have any idea at the extent of the damage to the Pentagon.

[hack89]

7. Just like the WTC,

most people don't have an appreciation for the forces and energy involved.

[MrSammo1]

2. No. There is no sign of that happening.

The missing vertical stabilizer is the biggest tell.

[Bushknew]

3. The Cartwheel Theory

Look at the original video released by the government

Do you see a plane Cartwheel into the Pentagon?

If flight 77 did Cartwheel into the Pentagon, we would have seen something of the plane.

All I see is an explosion, I can’t see a 757 approach or crash into the Pentagon.

[mirandapriestly]

5. Don't wings hold the fuel?

or am I way off, but I'm sure I've read that. So, it seems as though this would be a major area of damage, along with the heavy engines rather than the fuselage. Same with the wtc.

now that I think about it, if the wings were lost outside then the fuel would have been lost outside too, wouldn't it? or if they "disintegrated" at the point of impact then the fuel would not have gone much further, at both the Pentagon and wtc.

[hack89]

6. The strongest and heaviest structural steel was found in the ..

cabin floor and the wing box (the area where the wings joins the fuselage). The 90 feet from engine to engine represents the most massive part of the aircraft and the part that would do the most damage to the pentagon.

The fuel had weight and mass - what wasn't expended in the fireball would have traveled into the building.

[mirandapriestly]

9. This analysis makes sense to me...

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/029.html
This link has illustrations and pictures.
...
"This illustration of the "official impact scenario" is made to scale over a satellite image taken 4 days before 9/11/01. It is based only on my logic and intuition of the physics involved. My belief is that at 345 mph the 10,000 pound engine would have separated from the wing when it hit the 39,500 lb. containerized generator trailer. I feel the aircraft would have yawed a little to the right as a result. Then the root of the right wing would have contacted the building next. It would not have been drawn back and sucked into the hole. It should be outside the building in all subsequent photos.

After that I would expect the left wing to deflect forward depending on the effect of the construction trailer(s) on its path. It should also be outside of the building. The fuselage would fit into the documented hole and disintegrate in the internal structures of the first ring. All of the fuel would pool and ignite in that location making it the main body of fire. Remnants of the tail would remain outside the building.

In short I would expect to find two wings, portions of the tail (especially the vertical stabilizer), and two engines somewhere outside the structure. Then I would imagine that passenger seats, luggage, and cargo would be found somewhere in proximity to the impact zone. The only external evidence in the available photos is a few very small pieces of fuselage and some miscellaneous parts. Most of the fire and debris can be attributed to the generator trailer, the construction trailer(s), two cars, one fire engine and the first floor office contents...."

This crash was similar to pentagon,,and look:

[hack89]

13. Who ever did that "analysis"..

needs to compare apples to apples. The difference between between a fully loaded 757 flying at 500 knots and a business jet rolling on land at less then 100 knots is huge.

Remember KE = 1/2 (Mass * Velocity squared.) Pentagon crash involved energy levels orders of magnitude greater. That commuter jet rolled through a fence and across a highway - you seriously believe it would hit that with anywhere near the same force as the Pentagon crash?

[mirandapriestly]

18. that's just a picture showing the WAY it hit

which was described in the text which you ignored. The liquid fuel doesn't have it's own momentum. It would disperse at impact.
Also, you don't KNOW the velocity, so your little formula doesn't mean anything.
Additionally, note the vertical stabilizer of the 747.

[hack89]

20. You make no sense..

if that small plane was traveling five times faster or it weighed 5 times more, don't you think the crash scene would look a lot different?

Of course the fuel has momentum - it has weight and it is moving. What do you think momentum is? If the fuselage and engines punched holes in the wall, what is there to stop the forward motion of the fuel?

[mirandapriestly]

21. IF it was traveling 5 times faster

The wings DID NOT continue into the building, the picture of the commuter jet is to illustrate the point at which they broke off. It makes sense, you are trying to change issues. The wings contained the fuel, the momentum was not necessarily a forward one. If the fuel hit the wall, it would have dispersed at that point. Using physics calculations when there are unknown variables is silly.

[hack89]

22. I understand now, however ..

The evidence shows that the wings broke off right where you would expect - outboard of the two engines. Hence the 90 foot hole (distance between engines) and 140 foot marks on the facade(wingspan of 757). This is exactly what your picture shows - the wings separated where the wings join the fuselage box spar. The difference is that on a 757 that box spar extends out further to support the engines. The engines on the small plane were on the fuselage.

The fireball most likely was the fuel in the outer wing tanks - the fuel within the wing spar box would have been carried inside the building. I agree with you that the fuel in the outer wings would have dispersed and/or exploded. The outer wings would have disintegrated due to the combination of impact and explosion.

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Nobody has ever said it cartwheeled

It certainly did not, although it very probably hit some things in its flight path (light poles, generator, fence, utility vault retaining wall).

If you thing the hole is "relatively narrow", then it might be a good idea for you to read this:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
and follow the link to this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

I wouldn't call 90 feet "relatively narrow".

Wing damage:

You can see where a chunk of limestone facing has been knocked away by the right wing - above the ground floor, slightly to the right of centre.

[killtown]

10. David Marra: "then the plane cartwheeled into the building"

"David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building." - TIME

[Kevin Fenton]

11. OK, you got me

I hadn't seen that before. How about this:
"Although one eyewitness said the plane cartwheeled into the building, it clearly didn't."
Would you go for that?

[jmb597]

15. however, 90ft is still...

not wide enough for a 757 to enter it. Also, the hole wasn't 90 ft until it collapsed way AFTER the plane supposedly went in. Do you really think that JUST a "chunk of limestone" would be knocked out from the right wing? wow. Where is the wing and the tail damage to the building?

edit: oops, I replied to the wrong person...I meant to respond to #10

[hack89]

17. 90 feet is the distance between the two engines ..

The heaviest and strongest part of the aircraft. There was wing damage to the facade.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[jmb597]

23. if there was only damage to the facade...

then that would mean the wings would have fallen off...where are the wings?

[hack89]

24. Little pieces of metal all over the place..

remember that they contained fuel tanks that undoubtedly exploded to create the fireball.

[laruemtt]

12. wouldn't cartwheeling cause

more damage to the "Pentalawn" than what was seen?

[MrSammo1]

14. wouldn't cartwheeling cause

I don't think you get it.

A jet cartwheeling.......can't happen. Just as a 757 flying a couple of feet off the ground at high speed...........can't happen!

[laruemtt]

16. actually, i should have put

:sarcasm: after what i wrote. i thought putting in "pentalawn" would denote this was a tongue-in-cheek post. :spank:

[Kai]

19. The Amazing 757s

These jets are the flying Wallinskis of aeronautic engineering. They take down one hundred story office towers, disappear into the ground leaving scarcely a trace and now we find them conducting gymnastics on the Pentagon lawn. Wow! What's your source for this morsel of ridiculous obfuscation -- one of Limbaugh's pompous drug-addled rants?

[savemefromdumbya]

25. The Pentagon wall was blown with a wee bomb

sorry to disappoint no fancy plane, no silver missile. Just a plain little bomb and then another 2. A plane did fly near the Pentagon but it didn't land there.